Talk:Provenance (geology)

[Untitled]
First section, Very good description of provenance

Second section, good description of the sedimentary mechanism.

In the transportation and accumulation of detritus part, how about carbonate? How does carbonate match with these mechanism?

Good description of Provenance method's development.

The classification of the method is a little redundant. I suggest you should be get rid of some of them and classify them into the three categories. It should be easy to understand and remember.

It will be better to talk more about the methods and what previous research they have been used to. Like XRF was used to measure the major elements in marine sediment and could show 30 different elements content.

Two last sections need to be finished. The last one could be expanded more, not only hydrocarbon research there should be more area which provenance like paleoceanography and paleoclimate research.

Overall I think it is a very good review page for provenance. It covers most of part this methods and its development. Some parts need to be finished. More figures for each methods are needed.

-Chang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.129.157 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett
Thanks for picking this important, but previously missing topic. This article will get many links.


 * The article is a good size
 * You have a good number of references in the tables, but some paragraphs and sections have no references, eg Source, Transportation, Mixing, Hinterland
 * Style could be improved, there should be less of a didactic style. Do not use "we" or "our", instead you could use "geologists" "stratigraphers" or passive tense.  Also please do not use abbreviations like "don't".
 * You could add many more wikilinks. Technical terms such as QFL ternary diagram  should be linked and or explained.
 * References could be improved by adding ISBNs, DOIs, volume, issue and page numbers. Did you really read all these references? Another thing is using abbreviations for journal titles, such as EPSL, please expand these out so that our non-specialised readers can find the journals! URLs to freely available copies are good too. But if they don't exist the DOI number will provide a link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tasha's Review
Very well planned and fleshed out page. Plenty of links to relevant articles for background information and images to illustrate text. My only concerns are grammatical, and it seems slightly wordy at times.